Not particularly important since it was never printed.

Actually, most of the listed papers are nit-picking. For instance, one of them complained that one of the papers misreprented expertise on the topic of climate change because they used a metric based on number of papers published in the field of climate science to measure expertise. The complaint was that since the vast majority of scientists working in the field believed that climate change was a real phenomonom that the paper looking at what the vast majority believed was biased towards what the vast majority believed. Shocking.

None of the criticism presented look particuarly compelling or notable, which seems to be why no one else is paying much attention to them. They are underwhelming and overhyped by your site.

Well known skeptic or not, the author in question directly contradicted the abstract of the results for his own study. It's right there for us to read and we can easily verifiy that his statement to your site was false according to the abstract of his study. So either the abstract is wrong and the author made a msitake in his paper or the author is wrong about his own paper, neither situation bodes well for the criticism. It's been known to happen, particular among so-called "skeptic" scientists where their public posturing is frequently different from their scientific results, possibly because their co-authors are less biased or they know their actual results will be rigorously reviewed unlike comments delivered to a blog of no particular noteworthiness.

A quick review of your site show it to be "politically independent" much like Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

You're linking back to the same site, with the same problems.

The first "peer reviewed rebuttal" listed there is a complaint that Science refused to publish a letter that claimed that one of the studies was wrong. That certainly convinced me. I mean, a letter that wasn't ever published? What could it be more devastating? If they're starting with the strongest evidence, I am seriously under whelmed.

The second one is from Energy & Environment the editor of whom has admitted that she picks articles to further her political goals (which include opposing environment groups and activity).

Several of the papers listed in the linked blog post are from the exact same people who complained about the Cook paper in the previous link you posted.

The remaining are nit-picking papers complaining about how this or that metric used to measure expertise is not perfectly accurate.

Over billed and underwhelming, as usual.

First of all, they're posted on "Watts Up With That?" and that's never a good place to start.

The central problem with "no global warming since 1997" is that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to an unusually strong El Nino effect (which started in 1997). When you start your trend line with exceptional data, you will always get garbage results and it doesn't matter what trend you're trying to measure. Interestingly enough the years 2005, 2010 and now 2014 are all warmer than 1998 and none of them feature a strong El Nino like we saw in 1998. Since a strong El Nino will raise global atmospheric temperatures by around 0.5 degrees, that means we have definitely seen warming when the year-to-year noise of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina) effects are accounted for. There's also the little tidbit that 1998 is only year in the top 10 warmest years that not in this century, which makes the "no warming since 1998" seem a bit bogus, doesn't it?

You don't have to take my word for it, though you can read more about it, if you want.

Wow. A biased, conservative, science-denying site says the paper is unreliable, imagine that. The paper hasn't been demonstrated to be fraudulent, it's been claimed to be fraudulent by some guy writing for a web site. He's managed to find a whole 7 people who disagree with the classification of their papers. 7 out of 11,944, clearly an error rate of 0.05% is unacceptable.

I should note that at least one of the disagreements was erroneous, the abstract from the author's paper directly contradicts the author's claim and supports the categorisation given to by the Cook study. And another claims that the referees made him take out the unjustified conclusions that he wanted to include that would have made the paper less supportive of AGW, if only his conclusions could have been justified with actual science. Of course, those errors mean that the author of the blog post denying the Cook paper has at least a 28% error rate, but clearly that's acceptable when it's supporting your particular views.

I'm not anti-nuclear, but requiring other people to agree to your solution before you'll admit the problem exists is pretty pathetic bullshit.

How about we agree there's a problem and then start determining what the best solution will be? I'm pretty sure it will include nuclear power, so there's no reason to be an asshole about it.

Actually, you won't. 97% of the papers that took a position on global warming between 1991 and 2011 support it. Out the 11,944 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mention climate change or global warming, only 83 rejected the central premises of AGW, while 3894 supported the premise (the remaining 7967 mentioned climate change or global warming but did not expressly support or deny it). So if you consider 0.7% to be "plenty", then I question your mathematical abilities.

Actually, that's just wrong. Skeptical science was started by a cartoonist, and the people involved there are mostly not climate scientists, so your first claim is obviously false.

The link from above is merely an explanation of why the claim that warming stopped in 1998 is wrong with actual links to the peer reviewed science to back up the facts used in the explanation.

Actually, it may surprise you but is has not been disproven at all. In fact, "[m]ore than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph".

If have seen both, what they don't allow is people to post demonstrably false information, go off topic or dip into personal insults.

That's a claim, not a fact, and Skeptical Science has a debunking of that claim too.

As far as I can tell, GamerGate claims to be about gaming journalism ethics and not any media that matters in any significant way.

No, it really isn't.

You must be either be clueless or a teenager, if you didn't already know that. It's the most prevalent side effect of the commercialization of the news media. I think Slashdot even covered at least one such scandal in the mainstream media and that was many years ago. In that case, a Fox channel in Florida fired two reporters who refused to edit out parts of their news story that were critical of an advertiser (Monsanto). They sued Fox for wrongful dismissal, but lost the case because the courts ruled that Fox had no duty to tell it's audience the truth.

I don't think it journalism academia, they despair for the state of the news media. I think it's simply the corruption of mixing profit-seeking in with the activities that are supposed to create the informed electorate. When the news is bought and paid for by the very same people the news is supposed to investigate, is it any wonder that there is corruption? In America, the government can manipulate the media by simply threatening to take actions that will reduce the profits of the news organization unless they carry the news the government wants them to carry. Because the news is a profit center, it's rasy for the government to manipulate these corporations by such simple means as denying access to media scrums or government officials. Things that won't get the average citizen riled up, but could cost the news organization ratings and thus money. Additionally, it's easy for the news corporation to be manipulated by their sponsors because all the sponsor has to do is threaten to move their advertising to a competitor to lobby for certain stories to be softballed. Even worse as time goes by and these tactics are more common, the news organizations learn to take these actions without even be prompted.

In many ways the words "at this point" make that sentence less true. The term yellow journalism was coined in the 1890s, after all. The corruption of the news media waxes and wanes with the regulation imposed on it. That regulation is pretty loose right now in the name of free speech, which necessarily leaves a lot of room for corruption. There are worse things, for instance, most of the Russian media is pretty much owned by the Russian government so they repeat uncritically everything they are told to repeat which leads to worse media and worse governance.

Unfortunately, I really have no idea how you would go about making the news media less corrupt, other than maybe banning anything that claims to be news from accepting any sponsorship. If they aren't beholden to make a certain amount of profit for the sponsoring organization it becomes much more difficult to manipulate the editors, and through them the reporters.

He's not talking about that kind of disparity. The disparity he's talking about is the gap between the fortunes of the "rich" and the "poor". Wealth is accumulating rapidly on the "rich" side of the scale and we're not even sure if the "poor" side is accumulating anything. Now the rich will always have it better than the poor, so the real question is does it matter if the rich are one thousand, one million, on billion, or one trillion times better off than the poor? It seems to me the evidence, so far, indicates that the larger that gap, the worse off our society as a whole is. At furthest extreme it becomes easy for individuals to buy the votes to get the legislation which protects their interests passed. If you think that's already a problem, that might be an indication that the current inequality is already exceeding a reasonable threshold.

As far as I know, it isn't illegal to ride a horse (or drive a horse and buggy) on most roads (the exception being high-speed closed access roads like highways and interstates) in most countries. I suspect in 50 years time driving your own car will be considered a lot like horse riding or driving a buggy is today. It probably won't be illegal, just very expensive and thus out of reach for the majority of people.

How can NASA spend their budget effeciently when congressional representatives decide what they are allowed and required to work on? In this case a Republican Senator (Roger Wicker from Mississippi) amended the funding bill to require them to finish building it.

Actually, with James Inhofe in charge of the Senate committe on commerce sceince and transportation, it might be the case that anything science-related or any actual accomplishments in space is a defect of the intended process of funnelling vital money to the people who fund senatorial re-election campaigns.

In this case the "poison pill" was Republican Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi who attached an ammendment to NASA's funding bill requiring them to finish constructing the tower.